The unimanual handle-to-hand correspondence effect: evidence for a location coding account

  • Antonello Pellicano
  • Luisa Lugli
  • Ferdinand Binkofski
  • Sandro Rubichi
  • Cristina Iani
  • Roberto Nicoletti
Original Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

The handle-to-hand correspondence effect refers to faster and more accurate responses when the responding hand is aligned with the graspable part of an object tool, compared to when they lay on opposite sides. We performed four behavioral experiments to investigate whether this effect depends on the activation of grasping affordances (affordance activation account) or is to be traced back to a Simon effect, resulting from the spatial coding of stimuli and responses and from their dimensional overlap (location coding account). We manipulated the availability of a response alternative by requiring participants to perform either a unimanual go/no-go task (absence of a response alternative) or a joint go/no-go task (available response alternative) and the type of response required (button-press or grasping response). We found no handle-to-hand correspondence effect in the individual go/no-go task either when a button-press (Experiment 1A) or a grasping (Experiment 2A) response was required, whereas a significant effect emerged in the joint go/no-go task, irrespective of response modality (Experiments1B and 2B). These results do not support the idea that complex motor affordances are activated for meaningful objects, but are rather consistent with the more parsimonious location coding account.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

A. P. declares that he has no conflict of interest. L. L. declares that she has no conflict of interest. F. B. declares that he has no conflict of interest. S. R. declares that he has no conflict of interest. C. I. declares that she has no conflict of interest. R. N. declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Akçay, Ç, & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 742–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alluisi, E. A., & Warm, J. S. (1990). Things that go together: A review of stimulus-response compatibility and related effects. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 3–30). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baroni, G., Pellicano, A., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Influence of Temporal Overlap on Time Course of the Simon Effect. Experimental Psychology, 59, 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlucchi, G., Crea, F., Di Stefano, M., & Tassinari, G. (1977). Influence of spatial stimulus-response compatibility on reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized light stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 505–517.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2015). Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 351.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00351.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bub, D. B., & Masson, M. E. J. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 341–358.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017606.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bub, D. B., Masson, M. E. J., & Kumar, R. (2018). Time Course of Motor Affordances Evoked by Pictured Objects and Words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 53–68.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000431.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Buccino, G., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Rodà, F., & Riggio, L. (2009). Broken affordances, broken objects: a TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 47, 3074–3078.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). Object-based correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface-property judgments with keypress responses: Evidence for a basis in spatial coding. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77, 618–636.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0458-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 853–861.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 737–749.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021934.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ciardo, F., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., Rubichi, S., & Iani, C. (2016). Action-space coding in social contexts. Scientific Reports, 6, 22673.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22673.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Tieri, G., Sinigaglia, C., & Committeri, G. (2010). Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Experimental Brain Research, 207, 95–103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2435-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Couth, S., Gowen, E., & Poliakoff, E. (2014). Dissociating affordance and spatial compatibility effects using a pantomimed reaching action. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 855–864.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3798-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. De Stefani, E., Innocenti, A., De Marco, D., Busiello, M., Ferri, F., Costantini, M., & Gentilucci, M. (2014). The spatial alignment effect in near and far space: a kinematic study. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 2431–2438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3943-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K. C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint Simon effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0524-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 74, 911–929.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0304-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The Joint Simon Effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 974.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) Social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031031.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dolk, T., & Prinz, W. (2016). What it takes to share a task: Sharing versus shaping task representations. In S. S. Obhi & E. S. Cross (Eds.), Shared representations: Sensorimotor foundations of social life (pp. 3–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71, 22–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferraro, L., Iani, C., Mariani, M., Milanese, N., & Rubichi, S. (2011). Facilitation and interference components in the joint Simon effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 337–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferraro, L., Iani, C., Mariani, M., Nicoletti, R., Gallese, V., & Rubichi, S. (2012). Look what I am doing: Does observational learning take place in evocative task-sharing situations? PLoS One, 7(8), e43311.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043311.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Goslin, J., Dixon, T., Fischer, M. H., Cangelosi, A., & Ellis, R. (2012). Electrophysiological examination of embodiment in vision and action. Psychological Science, 23, 152–157.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429578.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713755643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 68, 1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Iani, C., Baroni, G., Pellicano, A., & Nicoletti, R. (2011). On the relationship between Affordance and Simon effects: Are the effects really independent? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 121–131.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.467251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iani, C., Ricci, F., Baroni, G., & Rubichi, S. (2009). Attention control and susceptibility to hypnosis. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 856–863.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.07.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Iani, C., Rubichi, S., Gherri, E., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). Co-occurrence of sequential and practice effects in the Simon task: Evidence for two independent mechanisms affecting response selection. Memory & Cognition, 37, 358–367.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.3.358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iani, C., Stella, G., & Rubichi, S. (2014). Response inhibition and adaptations to response conflict in 6- to 8-year-old children: Evidence from the Simon effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1234–1241.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0656-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iani, C., Ferraro, L., Maiorana, N.V., Gallese, V., & Rubichi, S. (2018). Do already grasped objects activate motor affordances? Psychological Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1004-9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lien, M.-C., Gray, D., Jardin, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2014). Correspondence effects are primarily modulated by object location not grasping affordance: An event-related potentials study. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26,, 679–698.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.940959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lien, M.-C., Jardin, E., & Proctor, R. (2013). An electrophysiological study of the object-based correspondence effect: Is the effect triggered by the intended grasping action? Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 75, 1862–1882.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0523-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the Social Simon paradigm. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77, 240–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 75, 366–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 174–207.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210959.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lugli, L., Iani, C., Milanese, N., Sebanz, N., & Rubichi, S. (2015). Spatial parameters at the basis of social transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(3), 840–849.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000047.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lugli, L., Iani, C., Nicoletti, R., & Rubichi, S. (2013). Emergence of the go/no-go Simon effect by means of practice and mixing paradigms. Acta Psychologica, 144, 19–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.04.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Masaki, H., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology, 37, 464–472.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3740464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Masson, M. E., Bub, D. N., & Breuer, A. T. (2011). Priming of reach and grasp actions by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 37, 1470–1484.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023509.Google Scholar
  44. Milanese, N., Iani, C., & Rubichi, S. (2010). Shared learning shapes human performance: Transfer effects in task sharing. Cognition, 116, 15–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ottoboni, G., Iani, C., Tessari, A., & Rubichi, S. (2013). Modulation of the affordance effect through transfer of learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2295–2302.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.863370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pappas, Z. (2014). Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: silhouettes and photographs. Cognition, 133, 716–728.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pavese, A., & Buxbaum, L. (2002). Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Visual Cognition, 9, 559–590.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280143000584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pellicano, A., Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2017a). Editorial: Bridging the theories of affordances and limb apraxia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 148.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2010b). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: the effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2190–2201.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.486903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Rubichi, S., Ricciardelli, P., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2010a). Real life motor training modifies spatial performance: The advantage of being drummers. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 169–179.  https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.2.0169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Pellicano, A., Koch, I., & Binkofski, F. (2017b). Location-Coding Account Versus Affordance-Activation Account in Handle-to-Hand Correspondence Effects: Evidence of Simon-Like Effects Based on the Coding of Action Direction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1647–1666.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Pellicano, A., Lugli, L., Baroni, G., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). The Simon effect with conventional signals. A time-course analysis. Experimental Psychology, 56, 219–227.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Pellicano, A., Thill, S., Ziemke, T., & Binkofski, F. (2011). Affordances, adaptive tool use and grounded cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 53.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00053.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Prinz, W. (2015). Task representation in individual and joint settings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 268.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00268.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Proctor, R. W., & Miles, J. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus-response compatibility effects? In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 60, pp. 227–266). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ricciardelli, P., Bonfiglioli, C., Iani, C., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2007). Spatial coding and central patterns: Is there something special about the eyes? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 79–90.  https://doi.org/10.1037/cep2007_2_79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Riddoch, J. M., Edwards, M. G., Humphreys, G. W., West, R., & Heafield, T. (1998). Visual affordances direct action: neuropsychological evidence from manual interference. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 645–683.  https://doi.org/10.1080/026432998381041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Riggio, L., Iani, C., Gherri, E., Benatti, F., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2008). The role of attention in the occurrence of the affordance effect. Acta Psychologica, 127, 449–458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2006). Attention to arrows: Pointing to a new direction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1921–1930.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500416367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roest, S. A., Pecher, D., Naeije, L., & Zeelenberg, R. (2016). Alignment effects in beer mugs: Automatic action activation or response competition? Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 78(6), 1665–1680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rounis, E., & Humphreys, G. (2015). Limb apraxia and the “affordance competition hypothesis”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 429.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00429 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint actions: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 70–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005. 12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: what, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 353–367.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01024.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How to share a task: Co-representing stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility. An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  68. Song, X., Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2014). Correspondence effects with torches: Grasping affordance or visual feature asymmetry? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 665–675.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.824996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision for action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 493–498.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193875.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8, 769–800.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280042000144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2007). A Simon effect in memory retrieval: Evidence for the response discrimination account. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 984–988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Wühr, P., Biebl, R., & Ansorge, U. (2008). The impact of stimulus and response variability on S-R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 34, 533–545.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.533.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division for Clinical and Cognitive Sciences, Department of Neurology Medical FacultyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and CommunicationUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Education and Human SciencesUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Communication and EconomicsUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  5. 5.Center for Neuroscience and NeurotechnologyUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly

Personalised recommendations